Bush Administration Stance on the Second Amendment:
Is the Glass Half Empty or Half Full?

The word roared through the Second-Amendment community earlier
this week: Solicitor General Theodore Olson had written, in a
brief to the Supreme Court, "The current position of the United
Sates ... is that the Second Amendment more broadly protects
the rights of individuals ... to possess and bear their own
firearms."

It was the third time a prominent Bush administration member
had taken a similar position. Attorney General John Ashcroft
stated the same viewpoint in a letter to the NRA last year.
Then in November Ashcroft wrote to federal prosecutors
applauding a pro-gun decision in Emerson v. United States.

We, too, would like to cheer this development. And we will.
Tentatively.

But above all, this alert is to urge all Second-Amendment
advocates to (as Ronald Reagan said) "trust, but verify."

FIRST, THE GOOD NEWS

Without question, Bush adminstration officials have expressed
better intentions toward gun owners than any administration
from Richard Nixon onward. After the aggressive rights thievery
of Bill and Hillary Clinton, the new policy statement is truly
a relief.

The fact that this individual-rights position was stated in a
brief to the Supreme Court is significant -- far more so than
a statement made to a private organization, because of its
potential impact on the court's decision and future government
policy.

It's crucial to understand that Olson's statement is in no sense
the law of the land. But to the degree that it influences court
decisions or the decision of prosecutors to bring (or drop)
cases, it could eventually be a godsend to peaceable people who
run afoul of paperwork violations or face unjust charges for
violating federal or state firearms laws. Precedent is a
powerful force in U.S. law, and this policy could eventually
result in defense attorneys having new tools to defend their
clients -- and defend the Second Amendment.

In the most optimistic case, the change of policy could even be
the first domino in the toppling of anti-gun laws. As Eric
Lichtblau observed in the L.A. Times

Attorney Richard W. Stevens, editor of JPFO's own Bill of
Rights Sentinel and co-author of Death by "Gun Control",
takes the optimistic position: "I say, hooray for the Justice
Department and Ashcroft for moving in our direction, as Ashcroft
promised. This position change can potentially affect court
decisions nationwide." To those who say the administration
hasn't done enough, Stevens adds, "If you don't cheer their
moving in the right direction, then what will encourage them
to keep moving our way? We criticize them for doing wrong, we
praise them for doing right ...and use it to our advantage ...
even if their 'right' isn't perfect."

BUT DON'T FORGET TO READ THE FINE PRINT

Unfortunately, the Bush administration's "right" is far from
perfect.

Having declared the individual rights position, Olson went on
to note in his brief that the right is "subject to reasonable
restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons
or to restrict the possession ot types of firearms that are
particularly suited to crime."

This portion of the statement (consistent with Ashcroft's
earlier caveats), suggests that the Justice Department will
do nothing to challenge obnoxious background checks, waiting
periods, magazine bans, concealed carry restrictions,
registration or licensing laws, or restrictions on types of
firearms owned.

"Reasonable" restrictions is language straight out of the gun-
banners' PR handbook. Is there any restriction that a hoplophobe
wouldn't find "reasonable"?

And who is "unfit" to possess a firearm? If this means only
violent felons or the violently mentally ill, fine. But if it
continues to mean that people with unpaid parking tickets or
thirty-year-old misdemeanors are barred from purchasing or
owning firearms, then peaceable people are still being denied
their rights.

And which weapons are "particularly suited to crime"? A brick,
a hammer, a screwdriver, or a rock can, in criminal hands, be
"particularly suited to crime." According to the campaigns of
various victim disarmers -- campaigns that have too often
resulted in the passage of laws -- all of the following have
been accused of being "particularly suited to crime":

In short, there is no type of firearm that can't be regulated
or banned by the government under the Olson standard.

Mssrs. Olson and Ashcroft have uttered hopeful words. But their
"fine print" means that total government regulation remains
possible. Actions speak louder than words, and we don't see the
administration withdrawing its support from any of the
unconstitutional laws, regulations, or abusive regulatory
agencies that have been imposed upon Americans in the last 70
years.

There is one other aspect to the cheers of the Second-Amendment
community that disheartens us. As professional songwriter Dan
Starr wrote in an e-mail to JPFO , "Isn't it amazing that we
are cheering the decision by the government to respect exactly
what they pledged to uphold when they took office?"

In fact, the Second Amendment community has been cheering the
administration for doing far less than fulfill its pledge to
uphold the Constitution. It has cheered "weasel words" not
backed by any solid deeds.

After discussing the potential positive ramificaitions of the
Bush policy, Richard Stevens concludes, "All of this takes a
lot of time. Meanwhile, the DoJ's position shift gives us a
powerful educational tool. We can say, 'Look, we have the two
Emerson decisions and the U.S. Department of Justice saying
that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
Sayonara, collective right theory -- enjoy eternity in the
dust bin.'"

In other words, the new policy should not encourage us to
relax, but to work even harder to explain and demand our
rights -- to use the momentum created by this development
to achieve much, much more than we have in the last painful
decades.

Yes, we can cheer with relief that the people currently in the
White House and the DoJ don't hate and demonize us as their
predecessors did. But we must accept nothing less than the
restoration of a true Bill of Rights culture in the United
States -- beginning with an authentic respect, expressed in
both words and actions, for the guardian amendment that
protects the other nine.

So cheer -- and then roar for the return of real freedom.

-----

To learn why there's a better alternative than politics for restoring the
Bill of Rights, read "The Last of the BOHICANS" by Aaron Zelman and Claire
Wolfe at http://www.jpfo.org/bohica.htm

While everyone's busy fighting little skirmishes, the armored column of
the police state is rolling down the middle of the highway, almost unnoticed.
If you want to see the big picture of why America and other English-speaking
countries are losing freedom, read The State vs. the People: The Rise
of the American Police State, by Claire Wolfe and Aaron Zelman. OrderThe State vs the Peoplefor just $19.95 (shipping and handling included
-- 10% more in Canada) and receive three "Gran'pa Jack" educational booklets:
Gran'pa Jack #2: "Can you get a Fair Trial in America?," Gran'pa Jack #3:
"It's Common Sense to Use Our Bill of Rights," and Gran'pa Jack #5: "The United
Nations is Killing Your Freedoms!" (a total $10.00 value, free when you orderThe State vs the Peopletoday. (http://www.jpfo.org/tsvtp.htm)

If you want to understand the ultimate progression of "gun control," readDeath by "Gun Control": The Human Cost of Victim Disarmamentby
Aaron Zelman and Richard W. Stevens. It begins with "reasonable measures"
to control the unruly; it ends in the death of a thousand cuts - and millions
of disarmed citizens. OrderDeath by "Gun Control"for just
$16.95 (shipping and handling included -- 10% more in Canada) and receive
Gran'pa Jack #6: "Will 'Gun Control' Make You Safer," and Gran'pa Jack #7:"Do
Gun Prohibitionists Have a Mental Problem?" (a total $6.00 value, free when
you orderDeath by "Gun Control"today. (http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm)